Manufacturing System Software Version Management

ABSTRACT

Version management for manufacturing system software involves a two-part data structure, having two identifiers that are separately and automatically modified, depending upon the changes or modifications that are made, respectively, to top-level and lower-level subsets of manufacturing system programs. According to various other aspects of the present invention, methods for managing revisions involve automatically assigning a version designator under preselected conditions, automatically notifying personnel having a need to know of the change, and managing revisions by way of a revision compare function.

This application claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C ¶ 119(e) of thepriority date of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/237,910,filed Oct. 4, 2000, the contents of which are herein incorporated byreference in their entirety.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates generally to the field of manufacturingcontrol systems and, in particular, to a system and method for managingversions of computer programs for manufacturing control systems.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

In manufacturing systems, such as those for electronics assembly,articles of manufacture and processes associated with their manufactureare represented by computer programs. In the manufacture of electronicsassemblies, many changes may occur in the design of the assemblies andin the programs that represent them. A product will generally comprisecomponents that may, themselves, be changed. Furthermore, a secondproduct may be developed that may differ from the first product only incertain respects. Changes to computer programs, whether they arise fromproduct changes or from software reruns must be carefully managed toavoid running manufacturing lines with incorrect instructions andthereby wasting machine time as well as materials. It is thereforecritical to be able to assign appropriate versions to each program totrack the various versions, and to validate or release only thoseversions of a program that have been duly authorized.

The problem of managing various authorized versions of a program becomeseven more daunting when a product, or derivatives of the product, aremanufactured not only on one line, under the supervision of aresponsible engineer, but in multiple lines in one factory, or inmultiple lines in several factories that are geographically distributed.The creation of versions of computer programs in this context, not tomention the validation and release of such versions, presents anenormous challenge.

There is, therefore, a need for a practicable, disciplined approach tothe creation and management of versions of computer programsrepresenting articles of manufacture, as well as for their validationand release.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention addresses the need, set forth above, for anapproach directed to managing revisions to versions of programs thatcontrol the manufacture of articles in a computer-operated manufacturingsystem. Application of the systems and methods according to presentinvention can eliminate wasted time and parts that may be encountered inmanufacturing assembly lines. The problems can arise from inconsistentunderstandings as to the latest status of the program that is to be runfor assembling parts. These, in turn, may be due to a lack of propermeans for tracking the latest version of the program for controlling therunning of the manufacturing line. Even if the method or means used fortracking a single digit version number, such as exemplified bydesignator “V1”, for, say, an electronic board (e.g., circuit board,printed circuit board as they may be referred to later), is satisfactoryfor tracking one type of program, it may not be adequate for trackingchanges to the program. In accordance with an aspect of the presentinvention, version numbers are designated in such a way that any changesmade to the same program are reflected in that version. This isaccomplished by providing an additional field, for example for decimalplaces, in the version number (e.g., V1.00), which can be used toreflect the changes that are made in the sub-parts or sub-objects of themain part of the program, in addition to the changes made to the mainobject itself. Various aspects of the invention will be described withrespect to an illustrative embodiment, in which a printed circuit boardwith electronic components is represented by an object oriented computerprogram. The aspects of the invention, however, can also apply to otherarticles of manufacture as well as to other forms of computerrepresentation that are hierarchical in nature.

Changes may be made to a main object of a computer program representingan article of manufacture, or to one or more sub-objects of the program.A version management system according to the present invention may alsodifferentiate among differing sub-objects. The present inventionprovides a method of reflecting a change in a particular sub-object, forexample, an object containing instructions for set-up associated with aproduct. This is accomplished by identifying each program recipe orinstruction set by its unique name so that, as the sub-recipes under themain recipe change, those changes are reflected in a portion of theversion designator or other status identifier.

However, every change that is made during development of a program, orduring debugging of the program or of the manufacturing line itself, ispreferably not reflected in the version designator, for, otherwise, itwould be difficult to manage the myriad changes that could take place.Moreover, it may be unnecessary to track changes that do not have anyimpact on a respective product until those changes are found to becorrect and used on a manufacturing line. Validation and release arealso characterized with respect to the type of factory in which themanufacturing line is run.

Thus, in a one-line factory, the engineer who programs an assemblymachine to manufacture a product may also be the person who sets up andruns the line. The engineer/operator therefore is knowledgeable aboutany changes, and can create, validate and release versions of a programcorresponding to those changes as he/she sees fit.

In the case of a factory with several manufacturing lines, or of ageographically distributed manufacturing operation, or of an enterprisewith several factories, the engineer who creates a program representinga product may differ from whoever is running the lines and setting themup. In this setting, a question arises as to who has responsibility forissuing the correct version of the program for running the lines, how isthe correct version to be issued, and who has the permission to run theline. The present invention provides a release process to help ensurethat only the latest working and valid program is released. Even if aslight change were made to the program, the user (such as a processengineer) would be notified that a modification has been made that needsto be approved. In an embodiment of this aspect of the invention,permission to release a particular version of a program depends upon thecategory of the line: permission for a line release can be given to allpersonnel (operators, process engineers, managers); for a factoryrelease, to process engineers; and for an enterprise release, to aspecific process engineer in the enterprise headquarters. The processdisclosed in the instant invention also clarifies the useraccountability depending upon where and how the version is released.

In a first embodiment of the present invention, a method for managingrevisions to versions of a program code for manufacturing systems isdisclosed wherein a particular program version is downloaded and run onthe manufacturing system, and, if the program performs according to apreselected criterion, a revised status identifier is designated.

Another aspect of the present invention is directed to a computer datastructure for use in identifying programs for computer-controlledmanufacturing systems. In an embodiment of this aspect of the invention,the programs comprise subsets organized with respect to one another in ahierarchical fashion, the subsets comprising a top-level subset and aplurality of lower-level subsets related hierarchically to the top-levelsubsets and to each other. A first portion indicates a revision to thetop-level subset of the program, and a second portion indicates arevision to any of the lower-level subsets of the program. A method forcompleting the data structure is disclosed where, in a first portion forindicating a revision to the top-level subset of a program, a firstsymbol is inserted to indicate that such a revision has been made, andsimilarly, in a second portion for indicating a revision to thetop-level subset of the program, a second symbol is inserted to indicatethat such a revision has been made.

In another aspect of the present invention, a computer-implementedmethod for managing revision to a program used in the control of amanufacturing system is taught. The method involves identifying that arevision has been made to the program; identifying whether the program,as revised, satisfies a preselected criterion; if the program, asrevised, satisfies the preselected criterion, automatically selecting aversion designator according to a preselected scheme; and automaticallyassociating the selected version designator with the program code.

In addition, methods for managing revisions to a program used in thecontrol of manufacturing system supervised by at least one operator, andin the control of plurality of manufacturing lines, are disclosed. Inthe former method, the manufacturing system is in communication over anetwork with a server coupled to a database containing the program, themanufacturing system and the server also in communication over thenetwork with at least one client device, the at least one client devicepermitting communication with the server by a person authorized to do soin order to access the program, the program also being accessible viathe server by the at least one operator through an interface associatedwith the manufacturing system. The occurrence of a revision to theprogram is detected over the network, and a determination is made as towhether the revision to the program was made by a particular one of theat least one authorized person. If the revision was not made by aparticular one of the at least one authorized person, a message is sentover the network from the server to a client device to notify theparticular person that the revision was made.

In the latter method, a version of a program is downloaded to themanufacturing system for testing the program associated with a statusidentifier, where the program relates to an article of manufacture thatmay be represented graphically based on information in the program. Thena request is received to compare a first version of the programassociated with a first status identifier with a second version of theprogram associated with a second status identifier, the first and secondstatus identifiers assigned upon release of the respective versions foruse on the plurality of manufacturing lines. Next, the program versionsassociated with the first and second status identifiers are retrieved,the program versions are compared to identify a set of differences, andthe differences are displayed having a visual characteristic thatcontrasts with the representation of the article graphically.

Accordingly, the present invention provides a computer-implementedmethod for managing revisions to a program used in the control ofmanufacturing systems. This is accomplished by providing a two-part datastructure for revision/version management; a method for completing atwo-part data structure; a method for managing revisions involvingautomatically assigning a version identifier under preselectedconditions; a method for managing revision involving automaticnotification of personnel with a need to know of the change; and amethod for managing revision involving a revision compare function. Anobject of the present invention is to reduce wasted time and parts, andhence improve productivity on the manufacturing line. Other objects andadvantages will be apparent to those skilled in the art in view of thefollowing description.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 a shows a symbolic representation of an embodiment of a datastructure representing a version designator, according to the presentinvention.

FIG. 1 b shows an embodiment of a version designator according to thepresent invention, showing a two level representation of revisionnumbers for a main object and a sub-object.

FIG. 2 a shows an example of the creation of objects and sub-objects,according to the present invention in the context of a build processflow for a representative mobile phone.

FIG. 2 b shows a process flow for building a mobile phone and anembodiment of a versioning method for programs having objects andsub-objects, according to the present invention.

FIG. 2 c shows a process flow for building a mobile phone, along withthe effect of changes in sub-recipes on an embodiment of a versiondesignator of a main recipe, according to the present invention.

FIG. 3 is a chart showing an embodiment of a version tracking approach,according to the present invention, on a single manufacturing line.

FIG. 4 is a chart showing an embodiment of a version tracking approach,according to the present invention, on a multiple-line factory.

FIG. 5 is a schematic representation of a computer-controlledmanufacturing system on a network communicating with a data base, aserver, and a process engineer, according to the present invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

FIG. 1 a shows a data structure designator that is used for identifyingthe version, and the status of that version, of a program comprising amain object and sub-objects that together represent an article ofmanufacture, as well as a manufacturing process step associated withthat article. The first character, which in the illustrated embodimentis shown as a generic “X” (01), is a version label and can be a V, thefirst letter of the word “version.” A top-level version identifier (02),after the version label, indicates the number of times the main objectwas changed, i.e., the revision number of the main object, while alower-level version identifier after the decimal point represents therevision number of the sub-object(s). Generic letter “Y” after thenumbers indicates the status of that particular version. Thus, using asan example a printed circuit board that is processed in an electroniccomponents manufacturing line, the symbol in FIG. 1 b represents asecond version of the board with a third revision of a sub-objectcomponent on that board, and that V2.03R is the released version where“R” stands for “released”. Had it been a validated version, which willbe described in greater detail below, the symbol would have beenindicated as V2.03V. It will be understood by those skilled in the artthat, in general, such a symbol as in FIGS. 1 a and 1 b can representthe status and the revision of any main portion (e.g., object), andsub-portions (e.g., sub-objects) of a program. Also, in this embodimentof the versioning method (although not in general), the version numberhas at least two increasing numbers straddling a decimal point thatseparates them. The first number, on the left of the decimal point,represents the revision number of the main object, while the secondnumber represents the revision number of the modification of any of thesub-objects that are associated with the main object.

Assignment of version numbers to objects, such as boards, starts withinitial programming. Thus, FIG. 2 a is a schematic drawing showing isthe initial steps of programming a computer-operated system for theassembly of a board for a mobile telephone. The board may be amulti-layered board with the required wiring layers, and provided withsites on it where other components, such as, resistors, capacitors,transistors, integrated chips and small outline transistors (SOTs), andso forth, are to be joined to the surface of the board usingtechnologies such as solder ball joining, wire bonding and othertechnologies known in the art. It will also be understood that thesevarious components are fed into placement machines through respectivefeeders. Furthermore, the system is to be programmed for one specificmanufacturing line. Thus, the computer-controlled system is to beprogrammed to place certain components on a particular board, in thiscase a mobile phone board, and through the use of a machine setup forthe particular assembly line. It is evident, therefore, that the finalassembled board can have different characteristics or features based notonly on the type of components that are placed on it, but also on theparticular machine setup that is used on the line. In other words, theover-all instructions, or recipe, to be programmed into thecomputer-controlled system must include a sub-recipe having a list ofcomponents, a placement list for those components and, at the same time,another sub-recipe describing the setup characteristics of the line,including the feeder characteristics, as an example for the case shownin FIG. 2 a.

When programming a manufacturing line anew with a new object, it isimportant to note that that new object is automatically assigned theversion V1.00, regardless of the versions of the sub-objects, which willbe described at greater length below in the description of theembodiments. Thus, in building the mobile phone process flow shown inFIG. 2 a, first the sub-objects are created in the program: namely,package form (10), i.e., the geometry of the area, including spacing,into which the transistor components will be placed; components (20)themselves; placement list (30), i.e., the places where the componentswill be mounted on the board; board (40). Each sub-object has a versionV1.00. Similarly, the sub-objects on the mobile phone sub-recipe side ofthe main-recipe also are assigned version V1.00: namely, feeder (55) forfeeding components in placement on the board, and setup for the mobilephone line. Finally, the main-object, that is, main-recipe (70) for allthe instructions in the sub-recipes also gets version V1.00. Even if thesub-objects are of a different version, the main object still getsversion V1.00. At this point, the version is not yet released formanufacturing.

However, once the main recipe (70) is first created with version V1.00,any subsequent changes and modifications in the sub-objects will bereflected in the revision number for all the sub-objects upstream fromthat changed sub-object, up to and including the main-recipe. Thus, if amobile phone board built with recipe V1.00 having component (20) with apackage form factor (10) is defective because of an inadequate toleranceprescribed in that form factor, a different form factor can be assigned,thereby changing the version for the package form to V2.00. Anysub-object that does not comprise, and, therefore is not influenced byother sub-sub-objects, as in the case with the package form factor, willhave its second set of numbers of its version number unchanged at 0.00.However, as pointed out above, any sub-object that is influenced bychanges in other sub-objects, will have their version numbersincremented by 0.01. Hence the version numbers V1.01 shown in FIG. 2 b.

Any change on the right hand side leg of FIG. 2 b, that is, in thecollective sub-recipe of the right hand side (80) of the same Figure,which can be characterized as board recipe, does also affect thesub-recipe on the left side (90), which also can be characterized assetup or line recipe. Because the package form is now of version V2.00,the feeder incorporating that package form takes on version V1.01, andso does the setup sub-object. If, now, the feeder is modified for somereason, and becomes version 2.00, for example, that will affect thesetup sub-object recipe, and the main recipe or object (70) will alsohave its version incremented by 0.01 to V1.02. This is shown in FIG. 2c. Thus, the main object, which is upstream of the setup recipe, showstwo changes in its sub-objects. Sub-recipes from which those changesemanate should preferably be given unique names, such as “Setup” or“Line” recipe on the left side of FIG. 2 b, and “Board” recipe for theright side in the same Figure so that the user can trace back where thechange or modifications took place.

After the initial programming of a computer-controlled manufacturingsystem, any subsequent modification, that is, editing of the objects,takes on a different significance depending upon whether the editedversion is released or not. First, when a version 1.00 is downloaded tothe line, the machines on the line will allow only one board to runthrough the line, but in the “run-in” mode only. A second board isallowed to move into the input conveyor of a machine, but requires theuser to press the start button before it can be assembled. The user willbe asked to check the entire board and confirm if the board gotassembled without any errors. To help in checking the modifications,graphical printout as well as textual printout of the modifiedparameters will be displayed at the station or can be printed to help infinding the modification to an earlier released version. As soon as theuser approves the program, the version is then either released orvalidated, depending upon the permission level, as will be describedfurther below, and will receive an “R” or “V”, respectively, at the endof the version, which is then frozen. The line will no longer requirethe manual intervention for the start button to be pressed for eachboard to go through the line thereafter. Thus, when the last releasedversion is being edited, the version automatically increases by 1 andsets the last digits to 0.00. Similarly, when an earlier releasedversion is being edited, the first digit of the version will beincreased by 1 and the last two digits set to 0.00. When an unreleasedversion is being edited, the version number does not increase.

When a sub-object (released or unreleased) of an unreleased version isbeing edited, the version of the main object does not increase. On theother hand, when a sub-object of a released version is being edited, theversion increases by 0.01 and will be marked as unreleased. When thesame sub-object then is released, even as part of a different recipe,the main object will automatically be released for the areas thesub-object was released.

It will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that it is mostimportant to have the latest valid and working program running in themanufacturing line. If a slight change is made to a working program, theuser is, according to the present invention, automatically notified andinformed of what modification to check and approve. Depending upon thelevel of the “permission” or approval authority that the user has, theuser may be allowed to validate the product for a line, or release theproduct for the factory or globally.

Validation and release processes are distinguished by the level ofpermission granted to the user for validation and release. Releasedobjects (such as recipes) are valid for an entire factory havingmultiple lines, or even a plurality of factories, whereas validatedobjects are valid for only one line. Release can only be given toobjects by authorized users with high levels of permission. In contrast,validation can be done by personnel with lower levels of permission,such as operators, to allow them to modify programs that cause a problemand then continue the running of the line. However, any change theoperators make is valid only for that line, and it requires the approvalof an expert (such as an authorized process engineer) for the change tobe disseminated to the rest of the factory. Likewise, before thevalidated objects can be downloaded to other lines, they must first beselected by someone with the appropriate permission level. Releasedversions are, in general, the version that will be downloaded. Just asthe release of a higher level object will release lower level objectsautomatically, the validation of higher level objects will validatelower level objects automatically.

According to another aspect of the present invention the process ofreleasing a version provides for the most flexibility in not curtailingthe productivity of the line. That is, any user can release objectscommensurate with his or her level of responsibility and accountability.In one embodiment, on every machine on which an unreleased version isrun, after each product (e.g., circuit board is run under the unreleasedversion), a release dialog appears, asking to release the data. Forexample, the question may be “Would you like to release recipeTelephone_(—)386?” The pop-up dialog window has three buttonsrespectively labeled “Yes”, “No” and “Details.” Under Details,information can be displayed as to exactly what is to be released.Preferably, there is the additional feature under the Details button tobe able to select and release parts of the recipe, rather than the wholerecipe for which a higher level of permission would be required. Thus,any personnel, commensurate with their level of responsibility, canrelease objects with or without user accountability.

Releasing objects with user accountability, however, requires thatinformation regarding what object is released by whom is to be recorded.This is especially important on lines where more than one operatorworks, in order to know who released a particular object. In this case,after pressing the “Yes” button on the Release Dialog, another pop updialog is presented where the user name and password are to be entered.Only if the password matches with the user name, and the specific userhas the level of permission required, is the object, e.g., recipe,released and the user information stored with it.

Where an operator is equipped with a mobile operator kit, such as aPocket PC® with a bar-code scanner, or other suitable handheld computer,in contrast to stationary computer stations, the operator can performmany different functions, including closed loop component validation,performance maximization, and others. The user has to log on to themanufacturing control system, before she/he can use it. Since there isone operator kit per operator, the login information can be used tocheck permission level in order to release objects and record therelease information including the user information.

In another aspect of the present invention, the computer-controlledmanufacturing system provides help to a user in deciding whether he/shewants to download the latest released version, a specific version or thelatest unreleased version of an object, such as a recipe. This isaccomplished by giving the user a choice in selecting a version todownload, however, commensurate with her/his level of permission. With aminimum grant of permission, the user will only be able to select thelatest released or validated version for that line to download. Thiswill be the normal case for operators. Also, when selecting a recipe,the default is preferably the latest released or validated version. Theavailability of the newer, unreleased or partially released version isalso made visible to the user. A partially released version is thatwhich is validated for another line or released for another factory. Theuser then chooses to decide which version to select. It is also possibleto select a previous version, if required.

An example of execution of an embodiment of the present invention, withthe various events described above, is shown in FIG. 3. In theillustrated embodiment, without limitation, a one-line factory isprogrammed by one or more engineers. The engineer who programs theproducts (e.g., boards and machine instructions for assembly) is veryoften the same person running the line as well, or the person whoprepares the set-up for the run. The engineer/operator, therefore, isknowledgeable about any changes and can make, validate and releaseversions of the program corresponding to those changes as he/she seesfit. Using FIGS. 2 a-2 c also, where now Recipe-1 refers to the Boardrecipe and Recipe-2 refers to the line or setup recipe, it is seen thatboth objects with the names of board and mobile phone line take versionV1.00 as they are newly created objects, even with changes made to theboard on the way to release. Then, with a modification made to the formfactor of a small outline transistor (SOT) 23 at event 11 in the sameFIG. 3, the version numbers for both recipes 1 and 2 are incremented by0.01 while the version number of the component is incremented by 1. Andthey are released at event 14 after the line asks for release and theengineer/operator does so after confirming the validity of the change.It will be appreciated that, for a single line, validation and releaseprocesses coalesce, as there is no other line to which the package canbe released. As still another example, FIG. 3 shows that, when adifferent recipe for a different product using the same board isdownloaded as Recipe-3, thus replacing the mobile phone with a handheldcomputer the version number for Recipe-3 is incremented in the samemanner as before by 0.01 if the form factor of a component downstream ismodified. The version number of the component itself is incremented by1, to V3.0 for the reasons given earlier. After checking the board forits integrity, the Recipe-3 and package form are released with thestated version numbers. Since there was a change on the board, thesystem automatically updates recipes at the single line Enterpriselevel.

The case of version tracking in a multiple-line factory is shown in FIG.4. Here, at a factory with several manufacturing lines, or at a globallydistributed factory, or at an Enterprise with several factories, theengineer who is programming the board and machines is normally adifferent person from the one who is running the line and setting themup. Thus, the engineer and the operator are two different entities inFIG. 4, and it is only the process engineer who can release a program.However, until the release, the operator can download, modify and changeobjects and validate them, but only for his/her own line. The Engineeris notified automatically when a change has occurred (see event 37 inFIG. 4) and only he or she has the authority to release the modifiedpackage with a new version number to the rest of the lines in thefactory, or to the lines distributed globally throughout the Enterprise.The intermediate incremental change by 0.01 due to the modification ofthe package form factor follows the same procedure as was the case inFIG. 3.

A system shown schematically in FIG. 5 involves manufacturing system(100), comprising several lines, in communication over the network withserver (120), in turn coupled to data base (110) containing the program.The manufacturing system and the server (120) are also in communicationover the network with at least one client device, the at least oneclient device permitting communication with the server (120), by aperson (130) authorized to do so in order to access the program, theprogram also being accessible via the server (120) by the at least oneoperator through an interface associated with the manufacturing system.The occurrence of a revision to the program is detected over thenetwork, and a determination is made as to whether the revision to theprogram was made by a particular one of the at least one authorizedperson. If the revision was not made by a particular one of the at leastone authorized person, a message is sent over the network from theserver to a client device to notify the particular person that therevision was made.

The various aspects of the present invention have been shown anddescribed with reference to particular embodiments and numerous detailshave been set forth to aid in their understanding. These specificdetails, however, need not necessarily be employed to practice thoseaspects of the invention. Moreover, changes in form and details may bemade without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. Forexample, the particular ordering of method steps may, in some instances,be varied or, the disclosed data structure rearranged or supplemented,while preserving its content, without departing from the scope of thisaspect of the present invention.

1. In a computer-operated system for programming a manufacturing system,wherein a version of a program is downloaded to the manufacturing systemand is associated with a version designator, a method for managingrevisions to versions of the program, the method comprising the stepsof: running the program on the manufacturing system, the programincluding subsets organized with respect to one another in ahierarchical fashion, the subsets comprising a top-level subset and aplurality of lower-level subsets related hierarchically to the top-levelsubsets and to each other, each of the subsets identifying a main objectand a sub-object, a version designator being associated with each of thesubsets, each version designator including a first version identifierassociated with the main object and a second version identifierassociated the sub-object; revising the first version designatoridentifier of a certain lower-level subset when the certain lower-levelsubset is modified; if the modification of the certain lower-levelsubset affects other subsets, revising the second version identifier ofthe other affected subsets, and identifying a status of the program asone of released or validated.
 2. (canceled)
 3. (canceled)
 4. The methodaccording to claim 1, wherein each of the first and second versionidentifiers comprises a number and the step of revising the first andsecond version identifiers comprises the step of incrementing theversion identifier.
 5. The method according to claim 1, wherein thestatus identifier comprises a validation indicator.
 6. The methodaccording to claim 5, wherein the manufacturing system comprises atleast one line, the method further including activating the validationindicator after the program runs satisfactorily on the line.
 7. Themethod according to claim 6, wherein the validation indicator is checkedas a condition to running the program on the line without manualintervention.
 8. The method according to claim 1, wherein the step ofidentifying a status includes providing a status identifier comprises arelease indicator in the form of the letter R or V.
 9. The methodaccording to claim 8, wherein the manufacturing system comprises aplurality of lines, and the release indicator identifies the program asreleased for use on the plurality of lines after the program runssatisfactorily on the lines.
 10. The method according to claim 8,wherein the release indicator is checked as a condition to running theprogram on any lines of the manufacturing system without manualintervention.
 11. The method according to claim 1, wherein themanufacturing system comprises an electronics assembly system. 12-28.(canceled)